Koch-backed study finds ‘Medicare for All’ would save U.S. trillions

[barbos]

Kochs and their researchers are idiots. They don't understand that if poor people end up spending less on health care they automatically get more to spend on something else and this is where they should invest.

 

[Jarhyn]

It isn’t unreasonable though, which is my point. Trausti be like, Government funded Medicare for all cost trillions haw... and US citizen funded health care for many costs only that much plus more. Haw haw!

Some child was left behind.

Did you miss the part where even double taxes doesn't pay for it? If the Dems want to campaign on double/tripling taxes, let 'em go right ahead. It'd be D.O.A.

Woot, called it. "WARGARBLREDISTRIBUTIONBAD"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is one "think tanks" conclusion.

The question for any program like this is what priority will it be given?

Will Republicans support it or continually try to sabotage it like they do with Social Security and Medicare?

Before Reagan Social Security was not taxed.

Yeah. There's little doubt Medicare-for-all would be cheaper than the current system.

However, I would expect to see what we see with UHC systems elsewhere--a slow erosion of the care provided. With the Republicans it likely would be even worse.

 

[Emily Lake]

Reading the actual report...

They did factor in savings to private sector... but there's a part of their math that I don't follow. There's a line for projected subsidies, and I don't know where that's coming from or what it represents. Also, their math seems... odd to me. I can't quite follow how they're going about it. I have a migraine at the moment though, so I'll try again when my head hurts less.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is one "think tanks" conclusion.

The question for any program like this is what priority will it be given?

Will Republicans support it or continually try to sabotage it like they do with Social Security and Medicare?

Before Reagan Social Security was not taxed.

Yeah. There's little doubt Medicare-for-all would be cheaper than the current system.

However, I would expect to see what we see with UHC systems elsewhere--a slow erosion of the care provided. With the Republicans it likely would be even worse.

Which is a direct result of shortsightedness among those with access to government, something along the lines of "but I can afford to be healthy so why should I subsidize someone who can't?" Or in easier terms, "fuck you, I got mine!"

It's exactly the same problem we see with the right with education: they don't see an uneducated population as a problem despite the only real difference between a first world country and a third world shithole being exactly the education level of said country, far more than any other factor.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It isn’t unreasonable though, which is my point. Trausti be like, Government funded Medicare for all cost trillions haw... and US citizen funded health care for many costs only that much plus more. Haw haw!

Some child was left behind.

Did you miss the part where even double taxes doesn't pay for it? If the Dems want to campaign on double/tripling taxes, let 'em go right ahead. It'd be D.O.A.

No, Bernie was pushing (if I remember correctly) a 2.7% increase, so let's just call it 3%. Do your out of pocket costs, including copays, coinsurance, responsible percentage, premiums and so on add up to more than that? Double that? Maybe not double if you're single, but if you have a family, you will save a lot more than you're paying in taxes.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is one "think tanks" conclusion.

The question for any program like this is what priority will it be given?

Will Republicans support it or continually try to sabotage it like they do with Social Security and Medicare?

Before Reagan Social Security was not taxed.

Yeah. There's little doubt Medicare-for-all would be cheaper than the current system.

However, I would expect to see what we see with UHC systems elsewhere--a slow erosion of the care provided. With the Republicans it likely would be even worse.

That's the reality. There will be a certain amount of rationing. Not like the horror stories the GOP spouts that come out of their ass. I have a good deal of neck problems. One day a massage therapist came to my place of business, and I went. It was great. I got an email later, turns out my insurance covered further massages without even blinking about it, at hundreds of bucks a pop. That kinda shit will go, or you'll have to pay extra for such privileges. I'm fine with that, actually.

 

[RavenSky]

It isn’t unreasonable though, which is my point. Trausti be like, Government funded Medicare for all cost trillions haw... and US citizen funded health care for many costs only that much plus more. Haw haw!

Some child was left behind.

Did you miss the part where even double taxes doesn't pay for it? If the Dems want to campaign on double/tripling taxes, let 'em go right ahead. It'd be D.O.A.

Did you miss the part where Medicare for All would replace our current system which actually costs taxpayers MORE than Medicare for All?

When we talk about a Medicare for All system, it’s important to discuss the costs in the context of what the U.S. already spends on health care. As of 2016, national health expenditures — which includes federal spending, state Medicaid programs, and private employer health care spending — totaled $3.3 trillion per year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

3.26 trillion per year (Medicare for All) is less than 3.3 trillion per year (current system) AND will cover 100% of U.S. citizens instead of the current 85%; AND there would be no co-pays, which means even more savings on a per-person cost basis.

What was your objection again?

 

[RavenSky]

https://thinkprogress.org/mercatis-medicare-for-all-study-0a8681353316/
...

Didn't see it mentioned in the article but I would think it would save large, small, as well as tiny businesses big time on insurance costs. My company pays 50% which is about $150 to $600/mo/person and we only have a few employees.

You are correct.

Equally important, employers will be able to hire the best employees and/or have higher profits and/or reinvest in their companies if they are not paying for employee health care;

and employees will not be trapped in specific jobs because of health insurance.

And assholes like the CEO's of Hobby Lobby won't be able to pretend corporations have religious beliefs in order to dictate what kind of birth control their employees can get.

- - - Updated - - -

Kochs and their researchers are idiots. They don't understand that if poor people end up spending less on health care they automatically get more to spend on something else and this is where they should invest.

For once, I agree with you

 

[RavenSky]

This is one "think tanks" conclusion.

The question for any program like this is what priority will it be given?

Will Republicans support it or continually try to sabotage it like they do with Social Security and Medicare?

Before Reagan Social Security was not taxed.

Yeah. There's little doubt Medicare-for-all would be cheaper than the current system.

However, I would expect to see what we see with UHC systems elsewhere--a slow erosion of the care provided. With the Republicans it likely would be even worse.

That's the reality. There will be a certain amount of rationing. Not like the horror stories the GOP spouts that come out of their ass. I have a good deal of neck problems. One day a massage therapist came to my place of business, and I went. It was great. I got an email later, turns out my insurance covered further massages without even blinking about it, at hundreds of bucks a pop. That kinda shit will go, or you'll have to pay extra for such privileges. I'm fine with that, actually.

Don't be so sure about that.

In general, universal health care in other first world countries cover far more - especially in preventative care and quality of life care - than our for-profit system does.

Will there be "rationing" of health care under Medicare for All? Of course. Medical resources and personnel are somewhat finite.

The reality is that there is "rationing" of heath care right now, too. The question is: Do we, as a nation, prefer to ration based on the necessity of care? Or on ability to pay through the nose for care?

Or to put it a different way - should Melania Trump's face lift be a priority over my daughter's life-saving insulin?

I know what my answer is. I also know what the typical Republican says, too... until it is their child dying, anyway.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Exactly.

 

[Emily Lake]

3.26 trillion per year (Medicare for All) is less than 3.3 trillion per year (current system) AND will cover 100% of U.S. citizens instead of the current 85%; AND there would be no co-pays, which means even more savings on a per-person cost basis.

I admit that I haven't read through the proposal, but Medicare currently has cost-shares. If those are being removed by this proposal, that would represent about a 20% increase in cost to existing Medicare, and would have a substantial impact on the cost of expansion. I could certainly be wrong, of course, but I'm inclined to think that there would still be cost shares under the M4A proposal.

 

[ZiprHead]

Kochs and their researchers are idiots. They don't understand that if poor people end up spending less on health care they automatically get more to spend on something else and this is where they should invest.

That's a damn good point.

Not to mention all the Koch industries have thousands upon thousands of employees they would no longer have to buy insurance for.

 

[RavenSky]

3.26 trillion per year (Medicare for All) is less than 3.3 trillion per year (current system) AND will cover 100% of U.S. citizens instead of the current 85%; AND there would be no co-pays, which means even more savings on a per-person cost basis.

I admit that I haven't read through the proposal, but Medicare currently has cost-shares. If those are being removed by this proposal, that would represent about a 20% increase in cost to existing Medicare, and would have a substantial impact on the cost of expansion. I could certainly be wrong, of course, but I'm inclined to think that there would still be cost shares under the M4A proposal.

Depends on which version you look at. The Bernie Sanders version being discussed - and the attendant numbers being discussed - does not include co-pays and that has been taken into account.

 

[bilby]

This is one "think tanks" conclusion.

The question for any program like this is what priority will it be given?

Will Republicans support it or continually try to sabotage it like they do with Social Security and Medicare?

Before Reagan Social Security was not taxed.

Yeah. There's little doubt Medicare-for-all would be cheaper than the current system.

However, I would expect to see what we see with UHC systems elsewhere--a slow erosion of the care provided. With the Republicans it likely would be even worse.

That's the reality. There will be a certain amount of rationing. Not like the horror stories the GOP spouts that come out of their ass. I have a good deal of neck problems. One day a massage therapist came to my place of business, and I went. It was great. I got an email later, turns out my insurance covered further massages without even blinking about it, at hundreds of bucks a pop. That kinda shit will go, or you'll have to pay extra for such privileges. I'm fine with that, actually.

There's already rationing. It's currently done on the whim of unelected and medically unqualified insurance company employees. How could letting doctors or even elected officials do it possibly be worse?

How can it make more sense to allocate medical care on the basis of wealth, than on the basis of medical need?

I mean, I can see how the very wealthy people might want to be allowed to jump the queue at triage; Or to get luxury services while poor people can't get treated for genuinely life threatening conditions. But not why anyone else would want to let them.

 

[Underseer]

We can't afford to save money! It would cost too much to save money! COMMUNISM!!!!!!! [/satire]

- - - Updated - - -

That's the reality. There will be a certain amount of rationing. Not like the horror stories the GOP spouts that come out of their ass. I have a good deal of neck problems. One day a massage therapist came to my place of business, and I went. It was great. I got an email later, turns out my insurance covered further massages without even blinking about it, at hundreds of bucks a pop. That kinda shit will go, or you'll have to pay extra for such privileges. I'm fine with that, actually.

There's already rationing. It's currently done on the whim of unelected and medically unqualified insurance company employees. How could letting doctors or even elected officials do it possibly be worse?

How can it make more sense to allocate medical care on the basis of wealth, than on the basis of medical need?

I mean, I can see how the very wealthy people might want to be allowed to jump the queue at triage; Or to get luxury services while poor people can't get treated for genuinely life threatening conditions. But not why anyone else would want to let them.

Yes, but with this kind of rationing, lots of poor people die, and lots of middle class people become poor, which gives us someone to feel superior to before we go broke and die ourselves. Therefore having the kind of healthcare system that developed nations have would be bad.

Fuck, but America deserves this shit-sucking healthcare system we currently have. We deserve to get face-fucked by insurance executives into an early grave because we are eye-gougingly stupid as a people.

 

[angelo]

As that famous saying goes: " There's no such thing as a free lunch!" Maggie Thatcher's also now famous saying also applies. " Sooner or later, socialists run out of other peoples money!" As proven in almost every single failed socialist state.

https://nypost.com/2016/01/31/bernie-and-the-high-cost-of-free-health-care/

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sooner or later when capitalists gamble, they run out of money. That's why banks step in to help Trumps and governments step in to help banks. Of course when governments fail, capitalists step in to steal everything and then gamble again. It's the circle of life.

 

[laughing dog]

That's the reality. There will be a certain amount of rationing.

With limits to resources, there is always rationing. That is the reality. The question is not whether to ration but on what basis. Republicans, conservatives and libertarians prefer to ration health care via the market process (i.e. prices and consumer incomes). UHC is an attempt to minimize or eliminate the use of the market to ration health care.

 

[Treedbear]

3.26 trillion per year (Medicare for All) is less than 3.3 trillion per year (current system) AND will cover 100% of U.S. citizens instead of the current 85%; AND there would be no co-pays, which means even more savings on a per-person cost basis.

I admit that I haven't read through the proposal, but Medicare currently has cost-shares. If those are being removed by this proposal, that would represent about a 20% increase in cost to existing Medicare, and would have a substantial impact on the cost of expansion. I could certainly be wrong, of course, but I'm inclined to think that there would still be cost shares under the M4A proposal.

Depends on which version you look at. The Bernie Sanders version being discussed - and the attendant numbers being discussed - does not include co-pays and that has been taken into account.

I just went on Medicare Part B and have an advantage plan. It costs me $134/mo + copays, but with just the free Medicare Part A you get almost nothing for preventative care. Just some immunizations but no physical exam or other care. I think I read that 70% of the advantage plan is subsidized by the government, so it's a bargain. I had my doubts when Sanders says "Medicare for all" because it seems like it's either worth almost nothing or else would still be out of reach for many people. I think Medicare is great. But UHC needs to be even better.